This fix was later unfixed by changeset/189635394, but I've since reverted that to restore to your changeset.

I've reverted this changeset since the issue was already fixed by changeset/184280082.

I've asked at osm.wiki/Talk:Key:charge:conditional#multiple_charges_selects_last_one

Ok thanks for the explanation. I've restored to the opening_hours based on what my StreetComplete edit set.

Ah I think it's just way/151675968 (possible a few other special cases), because it has a shorter maxstay than the other council beach car parks. I'll need to check the ticket machine there, it might still still let you buy a day pass, not sure.

Regarding the repeated conditionals used to present the options of a per hour ticket or a per day ticket, I see what you mean and that matches what osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Evaluation_of_conflicting_restrictions says.

So instead of

10 AUD/hour @ (Oct 1 - Apr 30); 40 AUD/day @ (Oct 1 - Apr 30)

would you use

10 AUD/hour OR 40 AUD/day @ (Oct 1 - Apr 30)

is that valid?

Otherwise, perhaps data consumers would need to treat this as a special case, where multiple matching conditions are treated as price choices for the charge key?

Looks like an issue with the editor. I opened that https://github.com/Zverik/osmtags-editor/issues/19

I was thrown by the changeset comment thinking it was intentional, but seems the editor creates the changeset comment for you.

Sorry I didn't realise the changeset comment was written by the editor software, I thought you wrote it.

It looks like what happened is you added name:be and then due to https://github.com/Zverik/osmtags-editor/issues/19 other tags were changed too.

Until that is fixed, best to not use that editor if def: tags are present.

Per osm.wiki/Proposal:Defaults the def tags were correct before, hence your changes were reverted back to before.

Is node/14152741206 a man_made=sewer_vent?

(by previous comment I mean changeset/188562883)

I'm not so sure about this. bicycle=* is an access tag. bicycle=designated provides the strongest declaration that riding is explicitly allowed by signage, markings or otherwise implied.

Most of these are very informal, none are officially signposted or endorsed as far as I know.

We do already have way/180819052 as abandoned:landuse=landfill which covers the whole site of the former landfill, including the area rehabilited as the MTB pump track.

Per osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element I'd probably say we should only tag it on way/180819052 but retain the landuse=brownfield?

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/12838645522 looks like you've dragged the tree node across, it's easy to do that in iD, so just need to try and be careful to avoid doing so next time.

Regarding way/1555501460 on road bike lanes without any physical separation from the traffic aren't mapped as dedicated ways, they are mapped as cycleway=lane on the road way as is done for way/708157964.

hi way/1555864277/history had informal=yes removed, while I haven't been there, if there's no indication it's maintained or endorsed or signposted by NPWS then likely informal=yes is correct.

are you sure this should be trail_visibility=excellent, is there signage, or clear markers guiding the path, or a constructed track surface that makes the path very clear?

node/14152851900/history latitude and longitude are already part of the node, and shouldn't be added as tag values.

Same as my previous comment, path=mtb already says these are "built" as MTB tracks, and given the informal nature of these I would either have no bicycle=* tag or bicycle=yes leaving bicycle=designated for explicitly signposted or officially endorsed/allowed MTB tracks.

Is node/6897837131/history no longer a lookout, even with informal=yes?

great work!